Alfa GTV twin spark, any good.

Lozzer

Member
Messages
2,280
Love those, a mate had a red one years ago, can't help with the ins and outs of them unfortunately, his ended up going through the gas works wall on the way to work. Was a lovely thing though.
 

alfatwo

Member
Messages
5,517
Those late 90's Alfa 16v twin spark engined cars were fairly good

I'd say a nice late 145 Cloverleaf is the one to have!..If you can find one

Dave
 

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,539
Those late 90's Alfa 16v twin spark engined cars were fairly good

I'd say a nice late 145 Cloverleaf is the one to have!..If you can find one

Dave

Mrs C had a 145 Cloverleaf. Really was a lovely car. Sadly most of the body panels are made of purest unbotanium. Probably best avoided now, sadly.

The GTVs I never quite got. She had one of them as well. Was very small and tinny. She quite liked it but I had 3.2 GT at the same time and the difference was indescribable

C
 

allandwf

Member
Messages
10,958
Those late 90's Alfa 16v twin spark engined cars were fairly good

I'd say a nice late 145 Cloverleaf is the one to have!..If you can find one

Dave
I had two of those back in the day, as company cars, one in Blue and one in Black. Great for the twisty roads up here. I probably did about 150k miles in them over four years. Not everyone appreciated the styling back then though. I loved mine, and they were distinctive.
 

lifes2short

Member
Messages
5,821
I'm gonna be the odd one out here, the gtv shape never really appealed to me, I think it's that bowed look to it side on, always preferred the cloverleaf sprint veloce shape
 

Spartacus

Member
Messages
3,184
Buy a (Phase 3) 2.0L twin spark . The earlier ones look dated . The revised deep grill on the later one look awsome . I had one and it was a lovely looking and driving car .

gtv.jpg
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,593
JTS are rubbish in comparison of the TS.

The JTS was an attempt to get some sort of fuel economy out of the TS unit...where in the problem was owners where simply trashing them as it was such an involving power band.

All that happened is they didn't rev like the TS and were very poor IMHO.
 

Fangio63

Member
Messages
614
I've had many Alfa's over the years, including 2 GTV's ... both were V6, looked great, but very nose heavy and the handling could be scary in the wet.. I suspect the 2.0TS a far better balanced car...
Insurance is always going to be a challenge though, and I'm not sure this helps much but quite some time ago I had a 145 hatchback as a runaround - with the 1.8 boxer engine in it... I put over 150,000 mls on it and I have to say it was an absolute hoot to drive.. Loved being revved.. and never had any issues with it.. The 145 Cloverleaf had the 2.0TS engine in, and if you can find one, delivers much the same thrills in a practical package... and they are starting to become collectable amongst the Alfisti.. and in my opinion worthy of the "cool wall"...

https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1074959

As previous advice stated... timely belt changes are essential..
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,593
My first Alfa, a 2L TS with 17" option wheels was amazing around roundabouts. Get into it and get the lock on then you can just floor it and it sticks.

You have to really work it which is very rewarding.

The V6 is better yes but as other have said, nose heavy and do not handle nearly as well.

Saying that, if I was GTV'ing again, only one engine...3.2 Busso :)
 

Spartacus

Member
Messages
3,184
JTS are rubbish in comparison of the TS.

The JTS was an attempt to get some sort of fuel economy out of the TS unit...where in the problem was owners where simply trashing them as it was such an involving power band.

All that happened is they didn't rev like the TS and were very poor IMHO.


The phase 2 TS looks awful and dated these days . The engine was better though. I would still get a phase 3 2l . Slightly reduced preformance but a much nicer looking car inside and out . If you are going for a V6 then a phase3 3.2 all the way
 

zagatoes30

Member
Messages
20,758
Was never a fan of the P3 car, that nose was too much on such a delicate design. An early TS is still the car to have IMO but I would still rather have a 155 TS or 145 Cloverleaf if you can find a solid one.
 

allandwf

Member
Messages
10,958
I tracked the 3.0 Spider where it did really well, impressing the instructor, but on the other hand my 3.0 GTV I managed to spin on a roundabout! Thankfully a quiet empty one.
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,593
The phase 2 TS looks awful and dated these days . The engine was better though. I would still get a phase 3 2l . Slightly reduced preformance but a much nicer looking car inside and out . If you are going for a V6 then a phase3 3.2 all the way
Only taking about the 2L engine TS vs JTS, the Phase 3 body yes, all the way.
 

MrMickS

Member
Messages
3,951
Only taking about the 2L engine TS vs JTS, the Phase 3 body yes, all the way.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I never warmed to the phase 3 nose. To me its like the last 156 facelift, trying to stamp a corporate face on something that doesn't need it.

If I were to buy a V6 though I'd go for the 3.2l and put up with the front. After all you can't see it from the cabin.